SpeedRacer 1 #1 November 30, 2006 clicky That'll show 'em! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #2 November 30, 2006 You know, if they outlaw friction, they could save a lot of money on fuel. 'Course they'd need special exemptions to the law for tires and sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #3 December 1, 2006 The best thing I ever got out of Kansas was myself, in 2004.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 December 1, 2006 QuoteThe best thing I ever got out of Kansas was myself, in 2004. Consider Dorothy. She was so desperate she rode a tornado to get outta there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 December 1, 2006 Quote... and sex. It might just result in a spike in sales for Astroglide and KY. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 December 1, 2006 You know, you'd think all these religious types in Kansas would want to do something about all those damn flying witches. And what about those flying monkeys who swoop down & steal people's dogs? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #7 December 2, 2006 you lot are friggin strangeYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #8 December 2, 2006 Ah, yes, the Onion. Lots of funny stuff there. I used some of their material on my radio show a few years ago. It was generally understood that some of the things they "reported" were actually true. What's not funny is the blatant double standard that surfaces whenever this topic is addressed. Evolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally. Guess who ends up accusing who of "censorship" and "ramming your views down my throat?" And you thought all the hypocrites were in church. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #9 December 2, 2006 QuoteAnd you thought all the hypocrites were in church. In my experiencethat is true. I went to parochial schools and we had scinece classes that taught SCIENCE..( gee go figure) and we had religion classes that taught...... gee RELIGION. Creation was taught in my religion classes. In todays world in a secular public school system they need to teach SCIENCE... and for those that demand creationism taught.. let them get it in SUnday School.... there is a proper time and place for both to be taught. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #10 December 2, 2006 QuoteAh, yes, the Onion. Lots of funny stuff there. I used some of their material on my radio show a few years ago. It was generally understood that some of the things they "reported" were actually true. What's not funny is the blatant double standard that surfaces whenever this topic is addressed. Evolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally. Guess who ends up accusing who of "censorship" and "ramming your views down my throat?" And you thought all the hypocrites were in church. Cheers, Jon S. When it comes to science classes there IS only one side. Evolution is science, and creationism is NOT science.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #11 December 2, 2006 QuoteEvolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. There is no debate.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #12 December 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteEvolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. There is no debate. ....because there is no "other side". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #13 December 3, 2006 >Evolution supporters insist that the schools present only one >side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. Nope, they have no problems present many different sides of science; indeed, good science classes do. They just insist that science be taught in science class and religion in religion class. That's a good guideline. I have never met a scientist that had any objection to teaching creationism in a course on religions. (Of course, just as in science, the good religion courses teach several creation myths, not just the local politician's favorite one.) > Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally. No, they don't. Read the Discovery Institute's goals. They want "secular materialism" destroyed, and getting creationism taught in schools is their "wedge" to get into schools and start indoctrinating kids against "the enemy." It's not science to them - it's war. Heck, research the history of creationism in schools. Initially they wanted creationism mandated and evolution outlawed. (You may remember a certain court case.) Since then their goals have not changed - but their tactics have become much more sophisticated. Edited to add a few quotes from the Discovery Institute's internal memo: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." "we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. . . our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points." Goals: "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." Nothing about "presenting equal alternatives" there! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #14 December 3, 2006 I love the Onion... (and now that I went up to Madison this weekend, I have several ones to read when I get home again.... to Kansas) but the sad thing is... that some times their articles are hard to tell if its really fiction. Some of those articles could be real [shudder] I honestly could see KS doing something as foolish as that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #15 December 3, 2006 I like this one - it makes about as much sense as ID http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #16 December 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteEvolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. There is no debate. ....because there is no "other side". Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #17 December 3, 2006 QuoteI like this one - it makes about as much sense as ID http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 Intelligent falling. hmmm. OK so does your IQ affect your fall rate then? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #18 December 3, 2006 Quote What's not funny is the blatant double standard that surfaces whenever this topic is addressed. Evolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally. Guess who ends up accusing who of "censorship" and "ramming your views down my throat?" And you thought all the hypocrites were in church. Cheers, Jon S.I'm interested to see where you have evidence of this..I'm not seen it. and as mentioned evolution is a science, creationism is not and therfore should not be taught as suchYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #19 December 4, 2006 ...Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally... ...I'm interested to see where you have evidence of this..I'm not seen it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There was a HUGE public debate regarding this issue not to long ago here in Cobb County, GA. The story made national news. A large group of citizens insisted that the topic be presented in a more balanced manner, and the school system was responding. Enter a single Jewish atheist with a bug up his ass and an attorney with nothing better to do; They were able to IMPOSE their narrow beliefs on everyone else by FORCING the schools to recind their modest attempt to insert a breath of common sense into the discussion. These pathetic attempts on the part of the pro-evolution crowd to portray themselves as reasonable are most transparent. Oh, how logical they sound, claiming that evolution be taught in a "science" class while creation is explained in a "religion" class. Meanwhile, we all know damn well that they will fight to the death to make sure their kids are never exposed to anything resembling a "religion" class. These people are far too intelligent and superior to understand that evolution is not science, no matter how often publishers insert the topic into a "science" textbook. In order for something to be accepted as sciencific fact, it must meet several standards. Among other things, it must be predictable, observable, and repeatable. Neither evolution nor creation meet these criteria. The real question is: Why is such inordinate priority assigned to this matter? As is the case with discussions of slavery, why are some people so hell-bent determined to make sure kids are exposed to saturation coverage of these issues at such a young age? How much worse off would society be if we placed such topics into the "oh, by the way" category, allowing the kids to grow into young adults before learning about such matters (when they will be better prepared to understand the details?) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #20 December 4, 2006 Quote...Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally... ...I'm interested to see where you have evidence of this..I'm not seen it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There was a HUGE public debate regarding this issue not to long ago here in Cobb County, GA. The story made national news. A large group of citizens insisted that the topic be presented in a more balanced manner, and the school system was responding. Enter a single Jewish atheist with a bug up his ass and an attorney with nothing better to do; They were able to IMPOSE their narrow beliefs on everyone else by FORCING the schools to recind their modest attempt to insert a breath of common sense into the discussion. These pathetic attempts on the part of the pro-evolution crowd to portray themselves as reasonable are most transparent. Oh, how logical they sound, claiming that evolution be taught in a "science" class while creation is explained in a "religion" class. Meanwhile, we all know damn well that they will fight to the death to make sure their kids are never exposed to anything resembling a "religion" class. These people are far too intelligent and superior to understand that evolution is not science, no matter how often publishers insert the topic into a "science" textbook. In order for something to be accepted as sciencific fact, it must meet several standards. Among other things, it must be predictable, observable, and repeatable. Neither evolution nor creation meet these criteria. Jon What a load of RUBBISH. Your statement indicates that clearly you do not understand even the definition of "science". Teaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional regardless of how large a majority of a community wants to do it. If they want their kids taught religion, they should send them to religious schools.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #21 December 4, 2006 QuoteTeaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional regardless of how large a majority of a community wants to do it. Priceless! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #22 December 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteTeaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional regardless of how large a majority of a community wants to do it. Priceless! Isn't one of the main purposes of the constitution to prevent majorities having it all their own way?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #23 December 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteTeaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional regardless of how large a majority of a community wants to do it. Priceless! Isn't one of the main purposes of the constitution to prevent majorities having it all their own way? exactly. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. In a complete democracy, it's majority rules. Anything goes as long as the majority agrees. The Constitution of our country sets limits on what can be done, regardless of what the majority wants. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #24 December 4, 2006 >Priceless! Lots of things like this. Slavery is clearly unconstitutional even if a large majority wants it, because of the thirteenth amendment. Similarly, spending federal money to teach religion in schools is unconstitutional due to the first amendment - no matter who wants it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #25 December 4, 2006 ...Teaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wrong on several fronts. First, teaching "religion" is NOT unconstitutional. To prove your point, you must cite the actual text of the Constitution to support your argument. I'm waiting... (I concede that atheist bigots have been successful in inventing court precedents which give the illusion that such information is prohibited, but there is no constitutional evidence to support the claim.) More to the point, teaching about creation is not, in and of itself, "religion." The fact that a piece of information happens to be in agreement with certain "religious" teachings is not reason enough to demand it be censored. If this were the case, it would be unconstitutional to teach kids they should not lie, cheat, steal, or mistreat their fellow man. After all, these teachings find their roots in Judeo-Christian Biblical philosophy. The real issue here is that you do not want your children to be exposed to both sides of the debate, period. You can't explain why, so you hide behind this "separation of church & state" fabrication. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
